Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy Gibson (Singer)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy Gibson (Singer)


Poorly written AFC page and sandbox of the same. I created a much better article at Andy Gibson (singer) yesterday, not noticing the existence of these pages until today. With a much better article existing, these are no longer needed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Considering that the sandbox was edited as recently as five days ago, I think leaving it there if the editor wants to work on it is justifiable. In addition, it is my understanding that declined AfC submissions still get to hang around, although it is very possible that I am wrong about that.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 04:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would they want to keep working on it when there's already a much better article to work on? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of userspace drafts?  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 01:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Is it not possible to merge some of it, to share the credit with Matt.tidwell?  He's a newcomer and he's trying.  Even if not, why not redirect?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with nominator, that the page should not be left as is. In general, accidental forks should be merged.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Unless there are BLP/Copyright/attack issues there is no hurry at all to delete or even redirect this draft. Let us be courteous to the creator and allow him time to consider what to do in the circumstances. Indeed I think the comments at the draft page "if you can address the issues found in the review, you are encouraged to make improvements and resubmit it" and on his talk page "Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised" are appropriate and should not be undermined by deletion. Thincat (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But why would he need to resubmit it if an article exists? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose he would want to do that, I haven't asked him. However, for example, he might want to take some of the content from the draft and include it the current article. Even if your article is "much better", it is surely not beyond improvement. There is no rush. Please give him time. Thincat (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep That someone "made a better one" is not in my list of "reasons for deletion." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this rationale for userspace, but not for projectspace. I might agree with userfying, except we normally expect a user to ask for userfication.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.